January 16, 2011

... And so this is the quandary the right finds itself in - it cannot communicate its message to voters since the message itself is verboten. And so it must rely on proxy arguments that don't necessarily make a lot of sense. For example, proclaiming loudly and forcefully to be against illegal immigration, but all for legal immigration. But when the left counters with "Then why not just declare them legal - problem solved" - the conservative is left sputtering about rule-of-law. His real argument - that the Hispanic population is simply [growing] too large and we can't afford as a nation to allow it to continue to grow rapidly - must be muted, as making this argument will lead to his banishment from public discourse. Why? Because any venue that hosts this argument will be immediately subject not just to a withering public flogging, but to boycott by sponsors and anyone associated with the host. ...

Similarly, in his attempt to be civil in his latest column "A Tale of Two Moralities," Paul Krugman states that "the real challenge we face is not how to resolve our differences — something that won’t happen any time soon — but how to keep the expression of those differences within bounds." He then goes on to frame the yawning gulf between right-and-left as an unbridgeable dispute over tax policy! Taxation is about the only topic on which the right gets to argue with some passion - perhaps because everyone hates paying taxes. Republicans are routinely lambasted as the "party of greed" as a result, but again who isn't greedy? Unfortunately, that results in the Republican party being essentially focused with near single-mindedness on cutting taxes, since that's about the only issue they can really promote with gusto.

The general idea behind freedom of speech is that more speech is, on the whole, better than less speech. That's not a very popular notion these days.

79 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Yes, exactly right Steve.One of the most horrible features of the recent Arizona shootings is the way the organised forces of the left and the MSM tried to shamelessly and viciously exploit a personal tragedy for their own petty little party political interests - never mind the dead bodies, (to paraphrase the Sex Pistols), here's the bollocks! The constitutional right to free speech in the USA must be seen to be inviolable and unchallengeable by all right thinking persons- even under the most extreme of provocations, whether this is the content of the speech itself or much, much ore ominously certain interested parties and shameless bigots attempting to exploit the situation for their own agenda. Having said all that, notice that the REAL nastiness, bile and venom is ALWAYS from the left.From all the personal, bitchy little attacks on Sarah Palin to Jared Taylor being punched and kicked whilst attemting to go on the platform and making a speech. The left are the real fascists.

I'm going to spend some time "expanding my moral imagination." The goal is to get to Krugman's level, where falsely accusing my opponents of inciting mass murder is a teachable moment- for everyone else. Everyone else needs to be more civil, but I need not be bothered to so much as say I'm sorry.

In the past week, the buzzword has been the "civility" of political discourse. I will tolerate as legitimate the view that gun-violence language (the cross-hair map and "reloading") might need some re-thinking.

But political discussion, per se, has suffered from TOO MUCH civility. Take gender issues for example. The completely false cannard that women make 20% less than men for the same work was allowed to perpetuate for two decades becomes it seems so ungentlemanly to dispute it with raw facts. Same with things like how schools shortchange girls, differential domestic violence rates and college entrance differences.

Similary, it seems so "mean" to talk about racial differences in ability. The Diversitarians keep repeating their accusations that the right is "ignorant" and "prejudiced," because we pay attention to the work of Murray, Rushton, etc. into the genetic component of intelligence and they ignore with faith-based beliefs about equality of ability. Which side is really being prejudiced and ignorant?

You want "civil" political discourse? Have you watched the party-line debates in the House of Commons?

The Left's message is about "equality", they hold this form of "justice" above all else, and would rather everyone be "equal" than better off on the whole. Your post illustrates how they use this principle to reframe and shutdown all debate outside of their (warped Marxist) worldview.

The Right needs a defining theme, it needs to be about something framed in a positive as well. It can't just define itself as against the Left. The Right needs a rallying call to reframe the debate and go on the offensive.

"Liberty" is the rallying call that comes to mind. It can take up the dialogue like this: we want Liberty for Americans from taxes that funnel money into wasteful programs and bureaucrats' pensions. We want Liberty for all Americans from the open borders that have allowed over 11 Million illegal immigrants into our country, altering our culture and contributing to the 14.5 Million unemployed in our country.

This sort of overarching positive theme, regardless of what the Left throws at it, is how the Right can make its case to the American people. The Right needs to take the lead and frame the dialogue in a positive world view.

I think his point about the weakness of the "but they're illegal" argument is an especially good one. I've often wondered myself why conservatives so often stress reasoning that has always struck me as fundamentally unpersuasive.

But I think there is an argument that is both strong and not verboten in mainstream right-of-center media: It is that we need to control the volume of legal and illegal immigration from Latin America. Such a huge number of people from any society markedly different from ours is bound to weaken the customs and morals that enable our open society to work. People from other countries -- any other countries -- need to learn to be Americans. That takes time. And that learning process will be blocked if we have huge numbers of people coming from the same country at the same time, because their numbers will enable them not to become Americans and instead to cause American society to change to suit them.

Keeping expressions of differences "within bounds" just means stick to mere nitpicking about policies shoved down everyone's throat by the people running the government. They will decide what the acceptable bounds are, backed up by their lefty brown-shirted street thugs. There is the environmental argument which should be of concern to all, though. Three hundred million in this country is already straining the limits. Who wants to live in an anthill of a country with six hundred million inhabitants? Doesn't look like a very green future unless, of course, actions are taken to steer things rather than letting things just drift.

The basic problem here applies to a legitimate subset of many different issues, not primarily ones on the right.

For example, Rand Paul got endless shrill anger for making a basically libertarian argument that giving government the power to forbid private discrimination was a bad idea. You can argue that (I don't agree with his position there), but it's not crazy. It's just outside the window of allowable discussion in the MSM.

Similarly, the only acceptable positions on foreign policy are ones that support constant massive intervention all over the world. Start talking about having a military for defending ourselves and closing most of our military bases all over the world, and you're an unserious nut.

You can kinda get away with arguing for drug legalization on harm reduction grounds, but only a dirty hippie argues that it's just none of anyone else's business what you put in your own body.

If you want to be labeled as a nut and ignored *fast*, start talking about US war crimes. It's more or less mandatory to start any discussion of US troops' behavior overseas with a catechism about how our soldiers are all a cross between the Terminator and Mother Teresa.

And on and on. This is partly a function of the stranglehold the MSM has on "respectable" discussion, but also just the way peoples' minds work.

The Amerindians got what they deserved[from the Conquistadores]. But presently, who condemns the ancient dwellers of the Americas? In a politically correct world it cannot be said that the infanticidal pre-Hispanics were psychologically dissociated; that the military theocracy was composed of serial killers, or that they were morally inferior to us....The most recent treatise about the encounter between the Spanish and Mexican empires is Conquest: Montezuma, Cortés and the Fall of Old Mexico by Hugh Thomas. It catches the attention that, as a typical bienpensant, in the preface’s first paragraph Thomas candidly talks about the members of the two cultures without realizing that they belong to very distinct psychoclasses. On the next page Thomas writes about “compassion” as one of the virtues of the Mexica in spite of the fact that on the next line he sates that even the babies in arms were made to cry with brutality before sacrificing them! As to the treatment of women Thomas writes, dishonestly, that their position was at lest as comparable to the female Europeans of that age, although we perfectly know that European women were not deceived to be sacrificed, decapitated and skinned punctually according to rituals of the Gregorian calendar. And the women who would not be sacrificed were not allowed to wear sandals, unlike their husbands. In the codexes the Indian females appear generally on their knees while the males are on sitting facilities .... And we must remember the Indian costume of selling, and even giving as presents, their daughters. The same Malinali, later called equivocally Marina or “La Malinche,” Cortés’ right hand, had been sold by her mother to some traders from Xicallanco, who in turn had sold her to some Mayans who sold her to some Chontales, who gave her as a present to Cortés. Thomas even takes as historical the words of the chronicler in regard to Xicoténcatl II’s embassy when, after Xicoténcatl’s people suffered crushing defeats, he went into the Spanish camp with words that portray the treatment of the Indian woman by their own: “And if you want sacrifices, take these four women that you may sacrifice, and you can eat their flesh and their hearts. Since we don’t know how you do it we have not sacrificed them before you.” The study of Salvador de Madariaga about the conquest, published under the title Hernán Cortés [Macmillan, NY, 1941], precedes half a century Thomas’ study. Without the ominous clouds of cultural relativism that cover the skies of our times, in Madariaga’s study it is valid to advance value judgments.

Steve, this a great thread. It would certainly be better if the population completely accepted the truth of HBD.

That being said, If you look at periods of history in which HBD was accepted and understood by all, the outcomes were generally poor as well.

The super high IQ people in New England that owned factories in New England 150 years ago may not have understood HBD. But they had high enough IQ to avoid imposing slavery in New England.

At the same time, the whites that lived in the deep south understood HBD inside and out. They could probably teach the average reader of this blog a thing or two about HBD and racial differences. But the knowledge of HBD led them to impose slavery, and in fact to rapidly grow slavery as an insitution.

Indeed, the Boers in South Africa were perhaps the most "race realist" people in the world. They knew HBD. But yet they decided to import millions and millions of NAMs in to the country to work on their farms.

So what is the pattern here? People in the past that really understood HBD inside and out aggressively importing millions of NAMs, pushing incessantly and aggressively for more NAMs

I have been dumbfounded that anyone could mistake a classic case of schizophrenia with anything to do with political speech. Paul Krugman may be wrong in his economic prescriptions but surely he's not stupid.

I just heard on the radio from ABC News that "the public is calling for the rhetoric to be turned down". The timing is suspicious.

Part of governing in a democracy is political rhetoric. The public's energy must be marshalled. So when the Democrats were in control of both branches of Congress and when George Bush was President - the partisan rhetoric was full on.

But now when the Republicans have gotten at least some power, it's time for everyone - we're told - to shut up.

It's rather like in basketball. You foul the opponent when no one is looking. When he retaliates the referee spots it and calls for a foul penalty.

If all this seems too complicated and conspiratorial, remember Paul Krugman has a Nobel Prize.

I know someone who went from unsuccessful local candidate to chairman of the state GOP. He took advantage of the various national meetings to schmooze..it was amazing to see the transformation as he acquired the sensibilities of the RNC. They are scared shitless of being called racists. They will do anything to avoid that. The small flyover state officials are especially timid.

" we can't afford as a nation to allow it to continue to grow rapidly - must be muted, as making this argument will lead to his banishment from public discourse. Why? Because any venue that hosts this argument will be immediately subject not just to a withering public flogging, but to boycott by sponsors and anyone associated with the host"

I think that arguing that we should have less Mexican immigration would be treated this way. It is not out of bounds that we should reduce immigration of low skilled people from all countries. I make it on some liberals blogs (Yglesias, Drum) and many of the other commenters agree.

David Frum made this argument on CNN and has not been flogged or banned.

It is amazing, how constricted our speech is nowadays. On Friday I think it was, Katie Couric did a segment on the "All in the Family" sitcom and my first thought was you could not do that on regular network TV today.

I think it is interesting how everyone has figured out that Sarah Palin and the Tea Party is opposed to immigration (at least the illegal kind.) They have never said so, and have bent over backwards to counter the charge of racism, but everyone has figured it out anyway. With the enemy controlling the mass media, the only signal that Sarah Palin has dared to send was attending a rally for Governor Brewer of Arizona and the fact that she was once seen wearing a Patrick Buchanan button. This was enough evidence for the Jews and Death-wish Liberals, and it will unfortunately have to suffice for me as well.

The reason Palin has to be so reticent is that she still thinks she has a shot at the Republican nomination in 2012. To do this, she has to overcome the opposition of the right-wing Jews in the Republican Party and avoid the shit storm in the media that would result from saying openly what everybody hopes or fears she believes about immigration. It is ridiculous, but censorship of the media has become so pervasive that conservatives have to campaign by sending secret signals to their supporters.

What we need is a "spoiler" candidate from the right. Someone who knows that he or she cannot get the nomination and is therefore emboldened to speak openly on immigration. If such a candidate got even a couple of primary wins despite universal condemnation from the media, it would scare the shit out of the Jews and the Republican establishment. They would be forced to abandon "open borders" and align themselves with populist views on the matter. I was hoping that Patrick Buchanan would run again, but I would settle for Sarah Palin. She just needs to realize that she can't win the nomination much less the Presidency, but that, if she gives voice to those who have been shut out of the debate, she can change the future of the country.

Our side should be proactive and float a major social policy initiative. How about this? Whoever is funding PBS (only 8% or so from public funds?) should be labelled "racist" for not spending their money to start more professional football leagues. As any nice person knows, it's unfair that such a large percentage of black men are incarcerated. If all these guys could make $80K a year or so playing B+ football we'd all be better off. But the Gates and Ford foundations just don't care!

I also cannont stand politicians and commentators of all stripes who deride "partisan politics". Partisan politics? What other kind is there? I want my politicians to be nakedly, unabashedly partisan. I want them to be on my side and against the other guy.

We are allowed to say anything we want, however if we give voice to the political ramifications that stem from our HBD beliefs we are then called "RACISTS"--but perhaps this is fair that we are labeled as racists. This is because according to most people, for someone to believe that genetic differences are the underlying cause for the lower IQs (and consequently more school failure, more poverty, more crime, etc) of Blacks and Hispanics means that person is definitely a racist. We want to be good people but yet we believe that our racism is rationally justified because our racism is based on what we believe to be the scientific truth, i.e. that Blacks and Hispanics tend to be innately less intelligent and more crime prone than Whites and Asians.

In our modern Western society racism is considered to be a great evil (perhaps the greatest evil possible). This began as the liberal Boasian philosophy but it has been adopted by neo-conservatives and most mainstream conservatives. Only a few mainstream writers (e.g. John Derbyshire and Charles Murray) openly admit to HBD beliefs.

Interestingly, non-Western societies such as Confucian societies (Han Chinese and Japanese) are highly racist and yet they do not regard their racism as evil or wrong (see chapter 8 of the recent book When China Rules the World by Martin Jacques).

I have been dumbfounded that anyone could mistake a classic case of schizophrenia with anything to do with political speech. Paul Krugman may be wrong in his economic prescriptions but surely he's not stupid.

@Albert: You're right, Krugman is smart enough to know his claims have no basis in reality. We need a word for people like him and Stephen Jay Gould -- highly credentialed scientists/academics who are willing to misrepresent what they know is the case in order to advance some "higher" goal.

"It is not out of bounds that we should reduce immigration of low skilled people from all countries."

This is the standard policy position of the centre right in most western countries. Skilled immigration is basically a code word for high IQ. In New Zealand we adopted it to contain Polynesian immigration (although no one on the mainstream right will admit this).

If the US centre right isn't embracing it I would guess it's because they are worried about alienating hispanic voters, or because US industry has greater unskilled labour needs.

It is instructive to peruse the New York Times archives in the years leading up to the 1924 Immigration Act. Hard to imagine the Times publishing, for example, this type of editorial today:

"The great menace of the new immigration of recent years is that, by introducing large numbers of varied races whose languages and traditions are alien, the nation may lose unity and solidarity...

...From England, Scotland and Ireland we shall receive immigrants who already speak our language...Scandinavians, though foreign to us in language, are racially and politically close kindred."

I wish there had been more immigration back then from Eastern and Southern European nations. They would have been mostly white and have assimilated just the same, especially because they were such a diverse lot. Since Greeks, Poles, Italians, Romanian, Russians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, etc couldn't form a common identity--like masses of Mexicans do today--, they would have all learned English and become good Anglo-ized Americans even if far greater numbers had arrived. Also, there was no PC back then, immigrants were taught to be patriotic, and most immigrants wanted their children to become good Americans. Imagine if US had allowed open white immigration from all over Europe in the 20s, 30s, and 40s and imagine if all those extra immigrants had tons of white kids. We would have far more whites today. And the release of population pressures in parts of Europe may have reduced the appeal of radical politics. It would have been win-win situation for both Europe and the US. But Anglo-Wasp prejudice won the day and cut off white immigration from 'swarthy' Europe. STUPID!

"The Amerindians got what they deserved[from the Conquistadores]. But presently, who condemns the ancient dwellers of the Americas? In a politically correct world it cannot be said that the infanticidal pre-Hispanics were psychologically dissociated; that the military theocracy was composed of serial killers, or that they were morally inferior to us...."

So, using this logic, it would have been okay for a non-German people to invade Germany in the 1940s and turn Germans into slaves since Germans, under Nazi rule, were doing crazy inhuman things. Too bad the Morgenthau plan wasn't implemented and Russians didn't rape EVERY German woman, that is following your sick logic.

And during the time of the cruel Vikings, the more civilized Persians or Chinese would have had the moral right to conquer and enslave Scandinavia since Scandi barbarians were into pillaging, looting, mass rape, and human sacrifice. This is again following your logic.

Btw, not all Amerindians were into human sacrifice. Part of the reason why Aztecs fell so quickly was because many natives joined with the Spanish as godlike saviors from the cruel Aztecs. Well, the Spanish may have been somewhat better but they too enslaved the natives and cruelly exploited them.

There was a time when blacks couldn't say much and had to sit in the back of the bus. They fought for their rights against danger and adversity. Some got locked up, some lost jobs, some got beat up, some got water cannon turned on them, some got dogs unleashed on them, and some even got killed. Mandela sat in jail for decades. If we really believe in what's right, we will likewise damn the torpedoes and risk our well-being to say what's on our minds too. Whites had become so entitled and comfortable with power and privilege over centuries that they don't know to deal with adversity. It is time for us to think and act like Jews and blacks in the past. There was a good deal of anti-Jewish hostility in Poland, Germany, Austria, France, etc in the 19th century and early 20th century, but did Jews ever give up? No. Jews thus got used to fighting and struggling as an underdog. We need to take on this mentality and skills too. It'll be good in toughening us up.

It's of course true that Republicans can't truly argue for what's best for America, because liberals will call them "racists" at every turn. So the argument against Mexican immigration has to be done FOR the purpose of PROTECTING the poor current citizens, white, black, etc. Republicans should use more language about wanting to protect the wages of the low-skilled. how can democrats oppose protecting the poor of America? You need to show the Democrats as what they are, enemies of the American middle class.

And also, Democrats will call Republicans racist, bigots no matter what. It's of no benefit to worry about it. It will happen, and we need to stay on message as being the party of the American middle class.

"The super high IQ people in New England that owned factories in New England 150 years ago may not have understood HBD. But they had high enough IQ to avoid imposing slavery in New England"

Indeed, if you look at the psychometric data, you will see that it is generally the lower IQ whites who have embraced "race realism" and in the past these low IQ whites embraced the idea of bringing in Africans because low IQ whites enjoyed not being at the low end of the status system.

Good example, IQ tests have shown that the white people in South Africa who originally came from the UK have higher IQ than the white people who originally came from the Netherlands.

Many of the high IQ whites from the UK could create wealth in the professions and live in Cape Town. These high IQ whites did not see the need to encourage Africans to move to South Africa. The high IQ whites could do quite well in an all white South Africa.

The whites in South Africa who were originally from the Netherlands owned farms, had lower IQs and didn't want to be at the bottom of the status system, also they did not want to do the hardest farm labour themselves and thus they encouraged Africans to move to South Africa in order to have farm labor.

It is a gross oversimplification to blame all of America's racial problems on low IQ whites / white supremacist whites (lots of overlap between those two categories) However, if you go back and read the history of white supremacist blogs like Stormfront and the white supremacist movement in general, you will see an aggressive push for the right to expand slavery. In fact, many of the political battles of the period 1800 to 1850 were over the issue of whether slavery could be expanded to the Western territories of the USA.

In the period 1800 to 1850 the "white supremacist" types who now read stormfront or Dennis Mangans blog were strongly on the side of expanding slavery to the Western Territories. They wanted a mixed population of black and white in the Western Territories.

Their opponents, the liberals and progressives that lived in places like Boston were strongly in favor of keeping the Western territories "all white"

Indeed, the "race realists" or "believers in HBD" or the "stormfront crowd" were overwhelmingly in favor of expanding slavery and expanding the population of africans to all of the Western territories

My response is, Buchanan ran twice and was very effective at getting his message out to the grassroots of the Republican party. He was soundly defeated twice. Isn't that proof that his views are not as popular as perhaps the race realist community would like?

There are many good reasons to oppose immigration (legal and illegal) that don't involve insulting Mexicans or other Latin Americans or obsessing about IQ.

These include:

1. The very real possibility that mass immigration is causing our nation to lose its unity and solidarity. (See the NYT editorial cited by another poster.)

2. Immigration puts a strain on our natural resources and capacity to respond to crisis and situations of scarcity.

3. The growing population makes us ever more dependent on foreign countries to meet our natural resource and other needs.

4. Somewhat relatedly, space and natural resources are strategic assets that should be conserved.

5. The United States doesn't need more "skilled" labor. There is ample natural talent to be found in our own people; if there is a shortage of "skills," we should look at ways to develop (educate) the impressive human potential we already possess. Immigration only undermines incentives to engage in such development.

6. In opposing immigration, Americans are only doing what every other nation on earth does: exercising a right to determine who becomes part of our community and protecting our borders.

7. Right to preserve our culture.

The points I have made above could probably be expressed even more persuasively than I have done. It is disappointing that Steve Sailer and, apparently, other commenters, continue to commit the foot fault of making overtly racist arguments when there are better and more persuasive arguments against immigrations. Let's start using them.

It's too bad the old reprobate died before the coming of Obama. What would he have been able to say about this administration in the way he discussed Reagan, Clinton, and the early days of Bush II? (He was in Europe on 9/11 with his wife, who died less than a year later. He then took to running around with an early-thirties aged strumpet and was engaged to her when he himself suddenly fell ill and died. I'm sure even a small chunk of his intellectual property wealth, good until after she herself would be a centenarian, and the prospect of being the fourth Mrs. Arthur Asher Miller on a list that included the third and very especially the second-arguably after Cleopatra and the Virgin Mary the most famous woman in history ever-were big factors in her ardor.)

First, acceptable discourse and boundaries are defined, mostly by women. Think about it. Guys like fart jokes. Women like stuff about wedding planners marrying big shot masters of the universe.

That right there is your clue. Male-oriented comedians break "acceptable" boundaries all the time, Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words You Can't Say on Television" being a classic. Female oriented literature is all about discerning true Alpha Males from posers.

PC, Diversity, and Multiculturalism being one massive test to discern those differences.

The trick is to both not care, and be high status enough in the first place. Charlie Sheen can scream racial slurs in drug induced frenzies, and nothing will come of it. He's Charlie Sheen. Gibson's problem was he got too old and lower status.

The response to illegal and legal immigration is to say, "If I wanted to live in Mexico, I'd have moved there." And if challenged, ask what has Mexico ever accomplished in science, technology, and wealth? Its a failure, and its people are failures, in generating wealth. Be blunt as possible, while focusing on ... THE MONEY.

Everyone cares about money. How to get it, how to keep it, how to make more of it. It matters. Money matters a lot. People understand it.

"For example, proclaiming loudly and forcefully to be against illegal immigration, but all for legal immigration. But when the left counters with "Then why not just declare them legal - problem solved" - the conservative is left sputtering about rule-of-law."

this exact argument is why conservatives cannot win the issue unless they make it about race. when illegals are transformed into legals, then what?

"Taxation is about the only topic on which the right gets to argue with some passion"

yes. of course, it is increasingly clear that most republicans at the national level only care about taxes. they're in favor of turning in the US into mexico, or at least, they're not very opposed. they're in favor of turning the US into an islamic nation, or at least, they're not very opposed. they're in favor of turning the US into a police state, or at least, they're not particularly opposed.

they're in favor of perpetual affirmative action, hand outs, naked identity politics, and suppression of european group interests, even when europeans are outnumbered. at the national level, most republican politicians appear to be IN FAVOR of all ethnic groups but europeans continuing to receive affirmative action even when they become the majority somewhere.

well, and guns. republicans don't need to talk about guns, because this is the one single issue that they have scored a definitive victory over. they've trounced the liberals on private gun ownership. the issue of second amemdment rights is totally over, with liberals barely willing to make half hearted attempts to take all our guns, which they absolutely want to do, but can't. it's pretty amazing the utter defeat liberals have been dealt on that front.

when the republicans really wanted to win an issue (guns) they won the shit out of it. too bad they don't try to win the most important issue of all: what will be the future of the united states?

in fact, republicans have won such a TOTAL victory on the gun front, that american gun manufacturers enjoy explicit trade protectionism so they don't have to compete directly with foreign gun makers and their imports.

the ATF has this thing called the points system, which is open economic protectionism. guns which don't score enough "points" on the ATF scorecard, are illegal to import. this is done to greatly reduce direct competition for domestic manufacturers such as smith & wesson and ruger. it causes tremendous inefficiencies in the manufacturing operations of all foreign makers, as they have to devote tons of time, effort, and money trying to meet US government protectionism regulations. lots of their products are just straight up eliminated from the US market, and the foreign manufacturers don't even bother offering them, or an altered version.

glock is a good example. it took glock a long time to get over all the trade barriers and displace smith & wesson and ruger from the hands of law enforcement and government agents. stuff like this sometimes leads to a company setting up a factory in the US to completely circumvent all the import bullshit. hence the glock factory in the US. this is exactly like car manufacturers setting up operations in america.

english speaking economists, who have no idea what they're talking about, are totally clueless about the realities of manufacturing, and don't realize that trade war, and not open trade, is standard operating procedure every day in every nation. there is no free trade. they think the market is totally efficient, and say so regularly. LOL! the firearms industry is hardly the only industry like this. every manufacturing industry has these inefficiencies to varying degrees and often they are quite large.

For example, proclaiming loudly and forcefully to be against illegal immigration, but all for legal immigration. But when the left counters with "Then why not just declare them legal - problem solved" - the conservative is left sputtering about rule-of-law.

Right, sputtering. Because "the rule of law" is such an incidental concept. I mean, it's not like it's fundamental to the entire endeavor, or anything important.

Oh goodness, inefficiencies, protectionism...you mean someone is not prying the last nickel of all-out capitalism from the gun business? WELL I NEVER.

I'm frankly deaf to this obsession with reducing everything down to the last penny of profit to be extracted, as the oddly parasitic econ jargon goes. Especially since following this "free trade" obsession has turned American business into a mindless and dehumanizing empire of outsourced, offshored, service economy managerialism. I'm quite puzzled by the value systems of people who are happy with the state of affairs they've produced.

my point was, not only can we never talk HBD, we are not even allowed to say in public that our economists are dead wrong, that free trade and open borders, which are core tenets of modern american political discourse, are as bankrupt intellectually as pretending there is no such thing as HBD. we can't even say that much. anybody espousing that position gets shouted down as a backwards isolationist know nothing moron who just crawled out of the woods in flyover country.

the size of the non-military firearms industry is not a major plot point. that is only a 4 billion dollars a year sector. it was an example. but almost every manufacturing industry is like that, the trillion dollar ones too. they try to protect themselves by asking the US government to protect them, and the same thing happens in other nations. eventually only the US lowers their shield somewhat, then they get whacked. yet we're forced to keep on talking about free trade and open borders, with no public dissent tolerated. accept free movement of labor, which in practice is a totally one way raging river of third world morons who dropped out of high school flooding into the most highly developed nations, and does nothing to make a labor market more efficient, just to push down wages and raise profits. the companies don't charge us less for their output. they just pocket the difference.

these economists have to deliberately overlook extensive US government interference into free trade to continue on with this free trade mantra. for instance. the US has dollars and wants oil. other nations have oil and want dollars. what's the problem? why does the energy department even exist? it only exists to deliberately interfere in an efficient energy market. the energy market is the biggest industry in the world. economists only don't talk about DOE because it's so ineffective at it's only mission that it has no effect at all on the oil trade. DOE is supposed to reduce oil imports. instead oil imports keep going up.

if we question any of this baloney, these schmucks in the media wave their faux nobel prizes in our faces and bash us over the head as teabagger idiots. the US is down to semiconductors, farm equipment, and aircraft, last time i checked. well, the defense industry is awesome, that is true. 600 billion a year in funding will do that. that's a lot of guns. 150 times the size of the private firearms market.

my point was, not only can we never talk HBD, we are not even allowed to say in public that our economists are dead wrong, that free trade and open borders, which are core tenets of modern american political discourse, are as bankrupt intellectually as pretending there is no such thing as HBD. we can't even say that much. anybody espousing that position gets shouted down as a backwards isolationist know nothing moron who just crawled out of the woods in flyover country.

the size of the non-military firearms industry is not a major plot point. that is only a 4 billion dollars a year sector. it was an example. but almost every manufacturing industry is like that, the trillion dollar ones too. they try to protect themselves by asking the US government to protect them, and the same thing happens in other nations. eventually only the US lowers their shield somewhat, then they get whacked. yet we're forced to keep on talking about free trade and open borders, with no public dissent tolerated. accept free movement of labor, which in practice is a totally one way raging river of third world morons who dropped out of high school flooding into the most highly developed nations, and does nothing to make a labor market more efficient, just to push down wages and raise profits. the companies don't charge us less for their output. they just pocket the difference.

these economists have to deliberately overlook extensive US government interference into free trade to continue on with this free trade mantra. for instance. the US has dollars and wants oil. other nations have oil and want dollars. what's the problem? why does the energy department even exist? it only exists to deliberately interfere in an efficient energy market. the energy market is the biggest industry in the world. economists only don't talk about DOE because it's so ineffective at it's only mission that it has no effect at all on the oil trade. DOE is supposed to reduce oil imports. instead oil imports keep going up.

if we question any of this baloney, these schmucks in the media wave their faux nobel prizes in our faces and bash us over the head as teabagger idiots. the US is down to semiconductors, farm equipment, and aircraft, last time i checked. well, the defense industry is awesome, that is true. 600 billion a year in funding will do that. that's a lot of guns. 150 times the size of the private firearms market.

The reason Palin has to be so reticent is that she still thinks she has a shot at the Republican nomination in 2012. To do this, she has to overcome the opposition of the right-wing Jews in the Republican Party and avoid the shit storm in the media that would result from saying openly what everybody hopes or fears she believes about immigration.

Palin has made her position on immigration clear, and it's the one approved by the GOP establishment. I think the best that can be said for her is that she does not come across as being as fanatically open-borders as Bush. She seems to be more going with the ruling class flow.

The points I have made above could probably be expressed even more persuasively than I have done. It is disappointing that Steve Sailer and, apparently, other commenters, continue to commit the foot fault of making overtly racist arguments when there are better and more persuasive arguments against immigrations. Let's start using them.

Baloney. No one ever makes "overtly racist" anti-immigration arguments, because such an argument is a logical impossibility. By definition (if "racist" is a pejorative term), only pro-immigration arguments can be racist because the immigration policy they defend is an act of racial aggression. Slef-defense is never wrong, and it is therefore never racist if "racist" is understood to refer to something bad.

The arguments you propose aren't better or more persuasive than honest argument that we have a right to preserve not only our culture but also ourselves and that we have a right to secure to ourselves the resources we have assembled for self-preservation.

Finally, the persuasiveness of the arguments is totally irrelevant as the public is now and always has been opposed to the immigration invasion.

The only consistent solution is White Nationalism. Race. Blood. Borders.

That should be the understanding of our elite leadership. By contrast, what they give out for public consumption perforce should be the collateral arguments - money, environmentalism, law and order, on which of course they are unbeatable. The trouble with our people is that they drank the Kool-Aid of universalist morality and actually believe their own bullshit: public-school catechisms are their operating intellectual "default setting." (A lack of sophistication - the usual American failing.) This disarms them when arguing even for the collateral arguments. Fatally, their vision is identical to the enemy's vision. The American Right is a joke.

A simple economic argument that skirts PC racial issues is easy: importing people into a country with a declining economy and a high unemployment rate is a very bad idea. The argument is unanswerable and instantly understandable even to those of limited intellectual acumen (supply and demand and all that).

"Buchanan ran twice and was very effective at getting his message out to the grassroots of the Republican party. He was soundly defeated twice. Isn't that proof that his views are not as popular as perhaps the race realist community would like?"

Yes, it is true that Patrick Buchanan is not a charismatic figure like Sarah Palin. He comes across like a petulant old academic of some sort. No doubt he would fail again. My preference is just for someone to say out loud what other politicians have to say by "secret signaling." Sarah Palin--because she wants to play the political game and win--will never be as forthright as Buchanan was. Maybe this is a strength. The Left continually attacks Palin because they understand instinctively that she represents the people whom they hate and are trying to displace--the white working class. To ordinary people it seems very unfair. She is constantly attacked even though she has never said anything very controversial.

If we are ever going to change American immigration policy, we are going to have to start talking about it honestly and openly, but perhaps the day when that is possible has not come yet.

In the period 1800 to 1850 the "white supremacist" types who now read stormfront or Dennis Mangans blog were strongly on the side of expanding slavery to the Western Territories."

Dennis Mangan is not a "white supremacist", nor is his site remotely like Stormfront. This conflation of the two is an attempt to imply an association where none exists - it is a smear.

"Indeed, the "race realists" or "believers in HBD" or the "stormfront crowd" were overwhelmingly in favor of expanding slavery ....."

There is a vast difference between race realists and HBD believers on the one hand, and the "Stormfront crowd" on the other. There were no nazi sympathisers in the antebellum south, for obvious reasons, although perhaps liberal orthodoxy now holds that there were. And by the way, the people who were pushing for the extension of slavery were the wealthy planters, as they were the ones who stood to gain by it. The poorer white southerners who did not own slaves weren't so gung-ho on the peculiar institution.

The trick is to both not care, and be high status enough in the first place. Charlie Sheen can scream racial slurs in drug induced frenzies, and nothing will come of it. He's Charlie Sheen. Gibson's problem was he got too old and lower status."

Are you kidding? Age and riotous living are beginning to catch up with Charlie "client number 1 through 498" Sheen. Aside from the boozing and drugs, there's the venereal diseases. He's probably got his own personal dick-doctor on speed dial. The only thing keeping him from looking like an old-man before his time is the plastic surgery, which is starting to make him look like a plastic mannequin (a plastic mannequin with a distinct burning sensation).

I think anonymous above was nearer to the truth. Gibson's mistake was not going on a tirade, it was going on a tirade about a poor powerless minority who - if you say anthing bad about them, or even just notice them - will crush you.

"I've never seen one iota of evidence that Palin represents the white working class. Her policy positions are identical to those of Bush."

Perhaps I should have said "she is a symbol of" or that "she draws her support from" the white working class. Whether she would do anything to help working-class Americans if she had political power is debatable. Probably not. It is no secret that the Republican Party has policies that are not aligned with the economic interests of the people who vote for it.

The only thing I think she could do is move Republican policies on immigration toward the populist end of the spectrum. The Republicans have been equally guilty of fostering the Mexican invasion of America. But for them it was only an economic theory--the corollary which states that "Free movement of capital and labor are essential for the workings of a free market economy." The Republicans will change their policies on immigration if they see that they have to do so to win elections. The Democratic Party never will. At least as long as it is controlled by the Jews and the Death-Wish Liberals which seems likely to be forever.

In the long-term we need to destroy the Republican Party and build a better conservative party on its foundations. In the short-term, we need to stop mass immigration.

I, personally, would like to see the Republicans pounce on the Democrats' dependence on elites and position themselves as the party defending poor whites AND blacks from the effects of illegal immigration. When they say "you have Hispanics" we'll say "you hate the white and black poor." You need to fight fire with fire, always.

The disgusting effects of feminism will need to be fought similarly, in the language of protecting the middle class family and children from the anti-male cunts who run the legal and court system.

I don't know if it was a canard years ago. When I was applying for a sales job in the early 70s in sort of low-scale department store, the human resources lady just up front said that men made more. We're not talking jobs where they had to know electronics or appliances. Just retail. When I said "Why" she acted as if it were just understood, "well they have families to support." I thought wth, on $1.98 an hour? I mean even if you doubled it, it wouldn't support more than a dog or cat. Yet I was mollified. As it was only 1973 or so. Anyway, few of the guys I saw in retail were supporting any families. A boyfriend maybe, or a coke habit; but not families. And what if the woman was supporting a family? She didn't get more salary for that.So yeah, it's true dude; women were paid less for the same jobs, at least in many, many areas of the economy. This was well known, and even women didn't object since I suppose most of them hoped to be suppported on those greater salaries eventually. But businesses did become very self-conscious about that and I doubt it's been true for at least 20 years or more.

The Left todaypretends to be interested in helping "the poor." The problem - and their big weakness - is that they don't really care which poor. Bring in an illegal Mexican and pay him $8 an hour and to them that qualifies as helping "the poor," even though the Mexican's presence hurts the American poor.

That is their weakness. People have to start distinguishing between the two.

this exact argument is why conservatives cannot win the issue unless they make it about race. when illegals are transformed into legals, then what?

The proper response is that legal immigration allows a country to set standards for who it would allow and the numbers of such. Simply making illegals legal doesn't solve the problem because the illegals are by and large not the sort of immigrants a sound immigration would have ever allowed.

And of course it makes no sense whatsoever to reward lawbreakers rather than punish them. (Duh.)

The annual MLK observance at the state house in Columbia SC had an interesting twist this year. The event is held on the north side steps of the statehouse. Prominent at that location is a large bronze statue of George Washington. This year, the NAACP constructed a "box" to conceal the Father of His Country from view so that participants would not be offended by his presence.

Estaban Rojo, Many of the Amerindian societies conquered by Spain based their entire cultures on the public and enthusiastic celebration of human sacrifice of all ages, torture and murder and cannibalism. None of this is true of the regime you do not like.

"I guess she could do that. But currently she's cribbing her immigration position from Bush and McCain."

One good thing about Palin is that she is a genuine populist. She has millions of fans who follow her on Face Book and Twitter. Mass immigration has never been a popular idea with the people who support her, and I am sure that she is aware of their opinions. If she were ever to move to a more liberal opinion in order to curry favor with the media, she would get thousands of emails saying, "Aw Sarah, say it ain't so."

That's my hope anyway. Can you think of anyone who is better on immigration to support? When the ruling elites of a society become bat-shit crazy and begin to regard the people of their own country as the enemy, it is time to vote for a populist.

I really believe the thinking of a substantial number of white ninnies who support "hate whitey" education is something like, "Gosh, we dare not take away their ethnic pride [ie "hate whitey"] classes because then they'll really start to hate whites."

--------------------------------

That was the thinking of the WASP establishment types when they lost control of the country in the 60's, but I think almost all whites who support stuff like that now are true believers.

Sarah Palin has suggested in the past that she favors amnesty. Maybe now she is saying something different(anyone have info on this?), but only a fool would trust her.

If you look at her career, she is largely a creation of the neocons. After Bush declined to attack Iran, they realized they needed someone substantially stupider than Bush to do the job.

The government does not forbid private discrimination, the government enforces the responsibility of organizations which benefit from municipal services to extend consideration to those that pay them."

Nonsense. This formulation allows the government to stick its nose in everything. Who says the government has any business regulating what a municipality should do, anyway? What about municipalities that would like to chose with whom they associate? The government does indeed forbid private discrimination.

In the eastern woodlands cultural area (roughly encompassing the eastern one-half of the United States, and the southern portion of Quebec and Ontario), cultural traditions for dealing with captives predated the arrival of Europeans.

Those men and women [2] who were not adopted, as well as teenage boys [3], could also face the alternate fate of death by torture. The torture had strong sacrificial overtones, usually to the sun.[4] Captives were expected to show extreme self-control and composure during torture, singing "death songs", bragging of one's courage or deeds in battle, and otherwise showing defiance.[5] The torture was conducted publicly in the captors' village, and the entire population (including children) watched and participated.[6] Common torture techniques included burning the captive- which was done one ember at a time, rather than the Hollywood-style pile of firewood around the captive - cuts from knives,beatings with switches and jabs from sharp sticks. Prisoners' fingernails were ripped out. Their fingers were broken, then twisted and yanked by children. Captives were made to eat pieces of their own flesh, and were scalped alive. To make the torture last longer, the Indians would revive captives with rest periods during which time they were given food and water. Tortures would begin with the lower limbs, then gradually spread to the arms, then the torso. The Indians spoke of "caressing" the prisoners gently at first, which meant that the initial tortures were designed to cause pain, but only minimal bodily harm. By these means, the execution of a captive, especially an adult male, could take several days and nights.[7]

Nonmembers at my gym, non-employees at my office, and non-customers at my favorite coffeeshop are routinely excluded from using those facilities. Private businesses discriminate in hiring on the basis of credentials, qualifications, work-history, etc., all the time. Neither of those would be allowable under your theory.

Not exactly, my friend, and it's not a theory, it is rationale behind the British legal code.

Every nonmember has the option of becoming a member; provided he pays the money.* These establishments are businesses, not non-profit organizations and thus, need paying customers to stay open. I cannot go to a restaurant every day and sit on a prime table for three hours paying lunch, that is a violation of the ostensible business contract, and restaurants do refuse service over this.

* Many high-end country clubs want to stay as white as possible, if not all white, they do this by charging exorbitant fees that not many blacks, Mexican, etc. can afford. When doing this they take chances at alienating their base clientele...white males as well, but as long as a the black NBA lawyer with fine character gets a membership, there is no legal violation.

A violation in the press, or the court of public opinion is another matter.

The author of the book "The Hypnotic States of Americans" doesn't need to sell copies.

We citizens of this once-great nation need both the information he imparts and the technique he presents therein.

Most of us sense something of mammoth proportions is about to happen in our nation and world. We not only sense, but with such developments as young people forming into "flash mobs," are also now witnessing our nation and some among us failing to cope with whatever it is that feels "just around the corner."

Within the pages of this book exist nothing less than the proverbial life-jacket, boat, paddle and potential destination of safety and success. Please take the time to go to www.fhu.com and preview this most profound and timely publication. There are very few times in our lives when something comes along that sounds "too good to be true" but is not.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.